03082019 - Worsening Insecurity: Suspected herdsmen kill Catholic priest in Enugu

SATURDAY Vanguard, AUGUST 3, 2019—35
1966 counter-coup
issues in the air again
– Wale Oshun, Arg President
•How feud between Bola Ige and Ijebu mafias divided Afenifere
•Denies lobbying to be Osoba’s running mate
By Dapo Akinrefon
R. Wale Oshun is National President of
Mthe Afenifere Renewal Group, ARG, a
splinter group of Afenifere.
Oshun, Chief Whip in the botched Third
Republic, in this interview highlights the factors
responsible for the crisis that led to polarization
of the pan-Yoruba socio-political group,
Afenifere, in 2003.
He, however, insisted that the feud between
the late Bola Ige and those he described Ijebu
mafias led to the crisis in Afenifere and the
eventual break-up of the group.
He also denied lobbying to be running mate
to the former governor of Ogun State, Chief
Olusegun Osoba during the botched Third
Republic. Excerpts:
Many believe that the issues that led
to the July 29, 1966 counter-coup are
still here with us?
Yes, if you recall, the counter-coup came on
the heels of the unitary constitution which
Aguiyi Ironsi brought about. I think it is decree
No. 34. When he introduced the decree, the
whole of North was up in arms that the unitary
degree should be reversed immediately,
because they would have preferred the federal
constitution to be the guarding constitution
for them. And it must have been one of the
remote causes of that counter-coup.
In a way the agitation which they did not
spearhead, asking Nigeria to return to a real
federation both in the constitution and in
practice, that agitation, which is still what we
have today. Now the constitution we have is
only federal in name, but unitary in nature
and for a country that is as diverse both in
culture, religion and language; the only
constitution that will work is a federation
constitution.
What we have now is a unitary constitution
which was what Aguiyi Ironsi introduced by
decree in 1966. Now we are up in arms against
the 1999 unitary constitution that is used to
govern the country as at today.
Agitations have been made that the
2014 National Conference
report will address the
problems facing the
country, do you subscribe
to it?
Incidentally, I was a member
of the 2014 conference. If you
take a look at the members,
whether it is a cursory look or a
deep contextual analysis of the
composition, you will find that
it was fully Nigeria that was
fully represented. I am saying
this not because I was a member.
The outcome of such a
conference should never be
dismissed. If you take a look
back, the recommendations
were all based on consensual
agreement. Because at all stage,
there was a decision, and the
basic understanding that the
decision should be based on
consensus, and the chairman of
the conference, Justice Kutigi,
was very meticulous. Even when
there were several uproars, he
set up mechanisms that calmed
the uproar. What we arrived at were decisions
that will benefit the country.
Even for the very delicate issue of derivation
when the oil-producing states were insisting
on total derivation, the decision was ultimately
taken that it should be increased to 19 percent
if I can remember correctly and that there
should be a spaced increment process, so that
while this is ongoing, deliberate efforts will be
made to pay attention by making certain
allocation to support the mining of mineral
which many of the states have in abundance,
but cannot be exploited, so that every part of
the country could become self-sustaining. So,
those who are opposing the implementation
of that conference decision are not helping the
country. If they have taken pains to study the
recommendations, they would know it is at
the best interest of the country.
Let’s assume that they are opposing it because
The outcome of
such a conference
should never be
dismissed. If you
take a look back,
the
recommendations
were all based on
consensual
agreement
they do not like the messenger, then let us have
another conference because until we have a
constitution that is acceptable to all, we do not
have a country. The tension that we have now,
that is what will continue.
How do you see the state of insecurity
in the country and what should be done?
Incidentally, the insecurity is also a
consequence of the dogmatic adherence to the
unitary values of the constitution wherein all
the responsibility for security, financing, and
modern governors are put in center that cannot
work.
That is why, for instance, we are having all
these security collapses, because the policing
system which is for civil security is largely
inadequate and it is bound to fail because it
did not address the differences and diversity of
the nation. Unity can only be built where there
are confidence and trust, and because unity is
not there, security lapses can exist.
Should the South West resort to selfdefence
as being proposed by some
Yoruba leaders?
One thing that I know is that there is
increasing complexity in the security situation
in the southwest. The complexity arises from
the fact that a lot of attacks take place by
bandits. The first thing must be the
determination to bring out the criminals from
where they are in the forest. I think that is
fundamental.
There must be a basic admission that only
animals live in the forest.
These attacks come from the forest, so the
mode of policing must now take that new
method of criminal banditry into focus.
Some Yoruba leaders argued that they
were not carried along when the South
West Security summit was held. Do you
agree?
The Yoruba, from all works of life, were
invited, and the issue is even this, how much of
a discussion can take place in the summit?
The responsibility of maintaining security is
that of the people and the government.
What led to the AD crisis and
the polarisation of Afenifere
which gave birth to the
Afenifere Renewal Group of
which you are the National
Chairman?
I have written a whole book
about Afenifere. This crisis
about Afenifere, I will say,
started just about the time that
the Presidential primary of AD
was to hold. The leadership
created its platform for
contestation. It was meant to be
a democracy, primaries were to
be held and they were held and
somebody emerged as the
Presidential candidate for AD.
But then, in every political
setting, I think the issue of
precedence, the argument
which late Chief Bola Ige and
most of his supporters had was
that there was a kind of seniority
placement within the group,
and ordinarily Olu Falae
should not have contested for
that position which late Chief
Bola Ige, or that the leadership should have opted
for Chief Bola Ige in preference to Falae.
But those who would oppose that would also
argue that Chief Bola Ige contested against a
much more senior member of the group in the
person of Pa Ayalande, in the 1979 governorship
election.
But whichever way, both positions were right
in the sense that there has been a pattern. There is
a leadership structure which allows for seniority
in the emergence of aspirants and candidates,
but this also has been tested. With Chief Bola Ige,
it was tested with Pa Ayalande, with C.O Adebayo,
it was tested with Olawoyin in Kwara State.
What happened in 1999 regarding Chief Bola
Ige, was that there were several miscalculations
to my mind, and Chief Bola Ige, assumed that
his colleague leaders would support him much
more than they would support another person,
and as a result, he entered into the race and
•Wale
Oshun
traveled out of the country. Believing that the
normal trajectory of Afenifere and Yoruba politics
will take over, there were changes. Olu Falae
must have gone round to campaign. In a way,
the preponderate went to Olu Falae and he (Ige),
with his supporters, felt that he was edged out
because of a conspiracy by what I called the
controlling leadership. Unfortunately, the
controlling leadership was seen to be much like
the Ijebu mafias including Adesanya, Adebanjo,
Olaniyun Ajayi, Papa Onasanya and all that.
So, you then had the organization almost
polarizing into two camps. For me, that was the
beginning of that major crisis and once you had
a split war, this would be the result. As soon as
that polarization took place, it was easy for Chief
Bola Ige to make up his mind with his colleagues
(Adesanya, Adebanjo, Olaniwun Ajayi, Papa
Onasanya) by accepting to work with Obasanjo.
While his co-leaders were against him, he was
working with Obasanjo.
The argument with some of them (Afenifere
leaders) was that, if Obasanjo would offer a seat
to AD, it should be to AD and AD would present
somebody, not to just one of them. They were
opposed to him accepting, but because there was
this polarization, it was easier for Chief Bola Ige
and his supporters to accept Obasanjo precision.
Once you have a situation like that, in a political
setting, and it is not amended early enough, you
will have people now lining up depending on
what they perceived to be the situation.
When you have that polarization, you had Bola
Ige one side, the other leaders on the other side.
Unfortunately, Bola Ige was murdered in
December 2001, but because at the point of the
division there were already two camps. Chief
Bisi Akande, Lam Adeshina, the governor of Ondo
State, Adefarati. After sometime, it got to a point
where only Adefarati remained with the elders.
Many times, there was a lot of throwing stones
across. But some of us who were much younger
then, the young Yoruba professional, we started
talking to each other and we all decided to hold
series of consultations. After that, we convened a
meeting at IITA, in Ibadan in December 2007.
We convened a meeting at IITA, Ibadan that
lasted for three days, and we had various Yoruba
leaders coming to talk with us on the need for
unity because the Yoruba was beginning to lose
its economic strides. But essentially, the issue of
reconciliation was at the heart of it.
Unfortunately, at that time, Chief Ayo Adebanjo
was preparing for his 80th birthday and he
granted an interview to the Guardian newspaper
where he lambasted all the governors.
Those who were almost reconciling now started
replying, throwing stones, which affected the unity
that already existed. It was after that debacle
that we now got together.
We decided that it was necessary to extricate
ourselves from this continuous melee of the
governors and the elders. That it will not make
sense for any one of us to be drawn one way or the
other, whereas, if we remain, we will be drawn
into it, because people had already been drawn
into it.
Not all the governors and leaders were into it,
but they had been drawn into it. We started
meeting, we had a series of meeting held in
Kayode Fayemi’s house in Lagos and another at
Bisi Adegbuyi’s house also in Lagos. We started
consultations and at the end of the day, we agreed
that, rather than allow ourselves to be dragged
into the problems or crisis that we were not part
of and we could not help to solve, since our attempt
to resolve it failed, it was better we established
our group. That was what led to the Afenifere
Renewal Group.
But it was alleged that former Lagos
governor, Bola Tinubu had a hand in the
ARG?
None of the former governors had a hand in
ARG. If you ask, Yinka Odumakin, who is one of
the most viral critics of Bola Tinubu, he will
confirm what I’ve just told you.
Former governor of Ogun State, Chief
Segun Osoba said you moved against
him over his refusal to pick you as his
running mate in 1992. How true is this?
In my life as a politician, all the contestations
I have had, I have always had an open mind.
Speaking about the deputy governorship
slot, it is true that, when he was aspiring to be
governor, those who were working with him,
particularly from my own ancestral home
(Ijebu), in fact Ogun East as a whole at that
time had already taken a position that if the
governor goes to Ogun Central, the deputy
will come from Ogun East. It was the political
leadership that requested me to throw my heart
into the ring and I did.
People like Otunba Igbodimpe, late Chief
Odulano and quite a number of them that
asked me to step in for contestation, but
everybody knows that at the end of the day,
it is the prerogative for the governor to
pick his running mate. Nobody in his right
sense should be nursing anger because he/
she was not selected. In fact, in my
particular case, those who invited me from
Lagos to come also insisted that when
Chief Osoba was intent on picking another
person also insisted that I must go to the
House of Rep. Because, at that time, the
decision-making process, is that of a
party.
Incidentally, his deputy governor at that
time imported another person to come and
contest that same seat with me (HOR), but
because it is a democracy, nobody had any
objection. But his deputy would not have done
that if he did not have a hand in it, but I still
went into it because it is an open contest.
I have also read where he said it was him
that enabled my election as the Chief Whip in
the House of Reps, which also is false. These
governors are afraid of their shadows.